2500-3500 lbs
manual


I prefer RWD always but I’m ok with FWD. don’t care for AWD all it does is making everything more boring, as far as performance cars go IMO. (Yes I drove Audis for years)

reviving this thread as it occurred to me (while awake in the early am hours ol man styles) that drivetrain is actually more important as it can actually make you laugh and smile, whereas handling wont

hear me out:
on reviews you see the reviewers sometimes laughing and smiling based on the acceleration and sounds a car makes but you dont really see them doing the same when they take a corner at speed

yes its fun to experience a car handling well, but it doesnt bring the same level of enjoyment as a crazy pull with crazy sound

anyone else feel the same?

based on the poll, probably not too many!

baege wrote

reviving this thread as it occurred to me (while awake in the early am hours ol man styles) that drivetrain is actually more important as it can actually make you laugh and smile, whereas handling wont

hear me out:
on reviews you see the reviewers sometimes laughing and smiling based on the acceleration and sounds a car makes but you dont really see them doing the same when they take a corner at speed

yes its fun to experience a car handling well, but it doesnt bring the same level of enjoyment as a crazy pull with crazy sound

Handling takes some concentration. Acceleration (with assistance enabled: I have to mind my runflats' grip in Sport+) doesn't. Accelerating there's nothing else to do but to smile and enjoy sounds until you fail to turn and hug a tree/post (making everybody else smile happy it's you and not them yet). With that said, I can not vote as I don't have much handling experience and I like acceleration (plane take off acceleration is my favorite part of a flight ). A lack of acceleration is annoying: you might want to read a book meanwhile, but a lack of handling is merely stupid: what will you do at speed without it? "Flying" by cars "standing" at about 100 km/h I thought: "I'm in a BMW, I, like, can!".

If it's one or the other, acceleration. But both is where it's at, with a bit more acceleration than handling.

You can always get a big smile out of a burnout. Expertly go around a corner at slow speed and you might pat yourself on the back, but it's not really fun.

I owned a Renaultsport Megane RS250 before the M3. Genius handling, super balanced, easily controllable lift-off oversteer on demand. So easy to drive I could do hill runs with TC fully off. Lackluster 4-pot tho, got bored of it after 5 years and sold it for the M3.

Both cars were from 2010 but the stock M3's handling was crap compared to the Megane. Utter rubbish. It's taken me many years - and many moneys - to mod my M3's handling to be closer to the Megane. And even then I can't dance the M3 like I could the Megane with stock suspension.

But I've had my M3 10 years now and have no intention of ever selling it. Sole reason is that stupid big V8 under the hood. Makes me smile every time I fire her up, even if it's just for a trip to the store. Stupid fun, makes me wanna redline it for no other reason than to hear the silly noises she makes.

So yeah, drivetrain for me.

As an owner of a supercharged LS7 Z06 & two twin turbo BMW M vehicles, I honestly don't get the love for naturally aspirated performance cars. I've owned a lot of them, and my three current vehicles are much better (from a power delivery perspective) than any of the dozens of previous ones

baege wrote

Are you about handling or drivetrain?

Yes

JABCAT wrote

As an owner of a supercharged LS7 Z06 & two twin turbo BMW M vehicles, I honestly don't get the love for naturally aspirated performance cars. I've owned a lot of them, and my three current vehicles are much better (from a power delivery perspective) than any of the dozens of previous ones

I usually wear my Apple Watch Ultra 3 but frequently I enjoy wearing one of my Rolex, Tag, or AP's because of the look and feel of them and what they represent.

I used to have other analog watches but I sold them since the Apple Watch is so modern and does everything better (not to mention I am of the age that I can't read my watch without reading glasses ).

It's no different with the cars. NA cars are lighter, simpler, have the induction and exhaust notes the good lord gave them and there is an element of purity to them (if you have the right cars).

I have had a bunch of Vettes and M cars, some with 1000+ HP and they all have their place. I have also had just as much fun in a Miata. You either love cars and driving and appreciate the differences between different types of cars or you don't.

Too many people here defining drivetrain as pure HP and shove, there's way more to it than that. Certain engines and gearboxes can be very engaging, others less so despite huge power numbers. BMW's B58 beast of a thing has incredible numbers, I drove it reasonably hard once and what a tremendous engine from a performance perspective but the flat 6 in my 997 is far more of an "experience" despite having half the torque and 150 less HP.

Alfas 1.8 litre 4 bangers and the old Busso V6's were much more enjoyable to drive than the 280HP Turbo 4 in my wife's Stelvio. On paper the 2T has more HP, WAY more torque etc but it's just not the same as the older engines that had real character.

Higgs Boson wrote

I usually wear my Apple Watch Ultra 3 but frequently I enjoy wearing one of my Rolex, Tag, or AP's because of the look and feel of them and what they represent.

I used to have other analog watches but I sold them since the Apple Watch is so modern and does everything better (not to mention I am of the age that I can't read my watch without reading glasses ).

It's no different with the cars. NA cars are lighter, simpler, have the induction and exhaust notes the good lord gave them and there is an element of purity to them (if you have the right cars).

I have had a bunch of Vettes and M cars, some with 1000+ HP and they all have their place. I have also had just as much fun in a Miata. You either love cars and driving and appreciate the differences between different types of cars or you don't.

congrats on such an amazing collection, you are living the dream of many us! I wouldnt have to create all those which car next threads if I could just have a big stable like you!

I have to ask since you have the R8 and the spyder RS, how would compare them? which one would you take for just a joy ride on a back road?

Alfisti wrote

Too many people here defining drivetrain as pure HP and shove, there's way more to it than that. Certain engines and gearboxes can be very engaging, others less so despite huge power numbers. BMW's B58 beast of a thing has incredible numbers, I drove it reasonably hard once and what a tremendous engine from a performance perspective but the flat 6 in my 997 is far more of an "experience" despite having half the torque and 150 less HP.

Alfas 1.8 litre 4 bangers and the old Busso V6's were much more enjoyable to drive than the 280HP Turbo 4 in my wife's Stelvio. On paper the 2T has more HP, WAY more torque etc but it's just not the same as the older engines that had real character.

absolutely spot on

and for me NA over turbo any day

was going to get a 128i over a 135i back in the day, because while the 135i is WAY faster, the 128i was more engaging with the NA engine

ended up with an e86 si instead which was almost as fast as the 135i but with the peach of an NA engine that the N52 is!

baege wrote

Alfisti wrote

Too many people here defining drivetrain as pure HP and shove, there's way more to it than that. Certain engines and gearboxes can be very engaging, others less so despite huge power numbers. BMW's B58 beast of a thing has incredible numbers, I drove it reasonably hard once and what a tremendous engine from a performance perspective but the flat 6 in my 997 is far more of an "experience" despite having half the torque and 150 less HP.

Alfas 1.8 litre 4 bangers and the old Busso V6's were much more enjoyable to drive than the 280HP Turbo 4 in my wife's Stelvio. On paper the 2T has more HP, WAY more torque etc but it's just not the same as the older engines that had real character.

absolutely spot on

and for me NA over turbo any day

was going to get a 128i over a 135i back in the day, because while the 135i is WAY faster, the 128i was more engaging with the NA engine

ended up with an e86 si instead which was almost as fast as the 135i but with the peach of an NA engine that the N52 is!

So, I have to say now that I have 3-years experience with the Ford 2.3L EcoBoost in my Bronco, I've somewhat evolved on the topic of NA vs. Boost.

Like you baege, I have a E86 3.0si, but I've also had BMW's M20, M54, N52 non-3IM, and the M44 4-banger. On top of that, I have a GM Small Block 5.3L V8 and Honda's GL1500 flat-6 Goldwing engine.

How the 2.3L EcoBoost fits in is I was at first skeptical of owning a turbo-4 tied to a manual transmission. Like both of you, I was a diehard natural aspirated guy and completely opposed to a turbo. Worst, back in August 2013, I had a F30 loaner for a week with the N55/ZF6-speed auto, which I thought sucked (the auto trans had a lot to do with it), which solidified my distain for turbo engines. But come 2022 and wanting the Bronco, there was no non-turbo option and for me no option to have an automatic, so I had to get the 2.3L EcoBoost and hope for the best (at initial test drive).

Three-years in now, I've come to like the 2.3L EcoBoost/manual combo. Like my prior dirtbikes and the M20, I have learned to use the "on-cam" power jump the turbo EcoBoost has (read that as post-lag when the turbo spools up ), especially for passing. Compared to my similarly-powered H3T with the Small Block and shitty 4L60 automatic (I've even tuned the trans), the Bronco is a blast to drive and utilize the turbo boost. Yeah, like most turbo engines the 2.3L likes to rev to redline too fast and does have lag, but once you learn how to control it with the right pedal.

Just wanted to offer a counter point based on my experience. Not disagreeing; I'd rather have a N/A straight or flat 6 and a manual transmission, but who offers one these days? Porsche for $200K? Nah.

I am all good with a turbo for a DD, I have been driving a Saab for 16 years. It's more for sports cars where I want to wring out and have it bark and spit a bit. Alfas little 1.7 in the 4C actually does a half decent job of having character but there is lag present.

JABCAT wrote

As an owner of a supercharged LS7 Z06 & two twin turbo BMW M vehicles, I honestly don't get the love for naturally aspirated performance cars. I've owned a lot of them, and my three current vehicles are much better (from a power delivery perspective) than any of the dozens of previous ones

I don't think it's fair to compare NA motors to already high performance NA motors that have forced induction added on. The big perk of forced induction is you can make big power with less driveability drawbacks, it is in essence faking displacement.

Years ago my buddy had a heads and cam LS2 Corvette. It was fast, but it SUCKED. It was a pain to drive because the aggressive cam.made if very easy to small. The aftermarket heads went through valve springs fairly quickly. He traded it for a C6Z after a while which had similar power, and it was way better.

If you were to compare similar output motors, like a B58 and an LS3, I'd take the big cube V8 every time.

Efthreeoh wrote

Kinda a tits vs. ass question...

Ass. Always ass. You can put a nice rack on a chick. Tougher to fix a flat ass.

For me it's all about balance with how the engine delivers power and how the suspension is matched to the chassis and power delivery. I used to be all about power. Started learning about cars/mods when I took on modifying a GM 60 degree 3.1L V6. Did cams, roller rockers, nitrous injection, etc. Moved on to the GM LT1 V8 in the 4th gen Camaro. Didn't get around to doing too much to that engine as I got into sport bikes.

When I got into sport bikes, that changed how I looked at what spoke to me with handling or power. Case in point. I've ridden all generations of the S1000RR on track. And I would have bought one had I not already purchased a 09 Ducati 848. The aha moment for me was when I was able to take my first ride on a K67 S1000RR on track. I remember the moment when I was getting on track coming out of the pits at VIR going into turn 1. How that bike effortless banked into the corner even though I wasn't anywhere at speed made me want one. A year later, I ended up buying a 2022 S1000RR and sold off my 09 848. I've never had that kind of visceral reaction to any car or bike. It's changed my perspective on how I judge cars now too.

Efthreeoh wrote

So, I have to say now that I have 3-years experience with the Ford 2.3L EcoBoost in my Bronco, I've somewhat evolved on the topic of NA vs. Boost.

Like you baege, I have a E86 3.0si, but I've also had BMW's M20, M54, N52 non-3IM, and the M44 4-banger. On top of that, I have a GM Small Block 5.3L V8 and Honda's GL1500 flat-6 Goldwing engine.

How the 2.3L EcoBoost fits in is I was at first skeptical of owning a turbo-4 tied to a manual transmission. Like both of you, I was a diehard natural aspirated guy and completely opposed to a turbo. Worst, back in August 2013, I had a F30 loaner for a week with the N55/ZF6-speed auto, which I thought sucked (the auto trans had a lot to do with it), which solidified my distain for turbo engines. But come 2022 and wanting the Bronco, there was no non-turbo option and for me no option to have an automatic, so I had to get the 2.3L EcoBoost and hope for the best (at initial test drive).

Three-years in now, I've come to like the 2.3L EcoBoost/manual combo. Like my prior dirtbikes and the M20, I have learned to use the "on-cam" power jump the turbo EcoBoost has (read that as post-lag when the turbo spools up ), especially for passing. Compared to my similarly-powered H3T with the Small Block and shitty 4L60 automatic (I've even tuned the trans), the Bronco is a blast to drive and utilize the turbo boost. Yeah, like most turbo engines the 2.3L likes to rev to redline too fast and does have lag, but once you learn how to control it with the right pedal.

Just wanted to offer a counter point based on my experience. Not disagreeing; I'd rather have a N/A straight or flat 6 and a manual transmission, but who offers one these days? Porsche for $200K? Nah.

you can totally get used to turbos and they are fun in their own right, I had the m240i and the m2comp, so only had turbos, for about 4 years, and I had fun, they pull like trains when on boost, but when I drove a powerful NA car again with good throttle response (in my case a GTS 4.0) I was like man I missed that!

baege wrote

congrats on such an amazing collection, you are living the dream of many us! I wouldnt have to create all those which car next threads if I could just have a big stable like you!

I have to ask since you have the R8 and the spyder RS, how would compare them? which one would you take for just a joy ride on a back road?

R8, to me, isn't really a canyon carver. It's for taking my wife to dinner or just going around doing stuff when I want to drive something nice. It sounds awesome with Kline Inconel exhaust and its just a great experience.

SRS feels more "race car" in that it makes all kinds of noises, sharper handling although still really street/road oriented, definitely the choice for back road joy rides. It's not extreme and maybe "race car" is being a little generous as one could daily it if they had a higher tolerance for noise and aren't a cocoon (bentley, rolls, 7 series) kinda fella.

baege wrote

you can totally get used to turbos and they are fun in their own right, I had the m240i and the m2comp, so only had turbos, for about 4 years, and I had fun, they pull like trains when on boost, but when I drove a powerful NA car again with good throttle response (in my case a GTS 4.0) I was like man I missed that!

This just ultimately leads to EVs IMO. That's where you get the ultimate "pulls like a train"...

baege wrote

you can totally get used to turbos and they are fun in their own right, I had the m240i and the m2comp, so only had turbos, for about 4 years, and I had fun, they pull like trains when on boost, but when I drove a powerful NA car again with good throttle response (in my case a GTS 4.0) I was like man I missed that!

It’s just the way the power builds in a good naturally aspirated engine. It isn’t faster but it just feels like it is. Nothing like it. Must be manual though. Yes it’s way more work but that work is what makes it fun when driving for enjoyment.

I still love turbos as well. Even old school ones that feel like your throttle is attached to a rubber band.

Modern turbos are probably the best when you feel lazy or just can’t be bothered with thinking. Still lots of fun in their own way though.

BlkGS wrote

Ass. Always ass. You can put a nice rack on a chick. Tougher to fix a flat ass.

Brain! If the head is empty it's much worse than a flat ass

BlkGS wrote

I don't think it's fair to compare NA motors to already high performance NA motors that have forced induction added on. The big perk of forced induction is you can make big power with less driveability drawbacks, it is in essence faking displacement.

Years ago my buddy had a heads and cam LS2 Corvette. It was fast, but it SUCKED. It was a pain to drive because the aggressive cam.made if very easy to small. The aftermarket heads went through valve springs fairly quickly. He traded it for a C6Z after a while which had similar power, and it was way better.

If you were to compare similar output motors, like a B58 and an LS3, I'd take the big cube V8 every time.

Yeah, idk. To me it's whatever is fast & sounds good. I do not think big cam V8s sound good, never have. Like you mentioned their drivability also sucks. My Grand Sport was nice, my modifed LS1s were nice, along with all the other V8s I've owned over the years. Every single one of them had headers, exhaust, intakes, tunes, etc. I prefer the supercharger & turbos.